I was deep in meditation. I asked, "Is there a plan for my life? What is the plan!?" I heard a voice say "It's in the key of B", and I saw the symbol for a flat in musical notation. The plan for my life is in the key of B flat! I understood this immediately. I have a record of Pete Fountain playing the clarinet. It's a clarinet tuned to the key of B flat. I like to improvise on my guitar along with the record. The plan for my life is: "We're improvising!".

Friday, September 28, 2012

In addition to a quote from Richard Wiseman saying ESP is proven to scientific standards but the standards for parapsychology should be higher, I have added the examples of Chris French, Ray Hyman and others.

Chris French has also stated he believes that ESP has been proven to scientific standards. However, he does not accept that those results should be accepted by science until the results have been replicated by skeptical scientists. These results have been replicated by parapsychologists. What French is saying is that replications are not valid unless the researcher has a certain philosophical beliefs. That is unheard of in any other branch of science.

...

Skeptic Ray Hyman in his 1995 article Evaluation of Program on Anomalous Mental Phenomena admits that the results of remote viewing and Ganzfeld experiments have demonstrated statistically significant effects. However, he implies there could be unknown methodological flaws in the experiments. This demonstrates a double standard because in no other field of science would a positive experimental result be criticized because there might be sources of errors that no one can think of. It is impossible for any scientist to defend his work against that type of criticism.

...

More evidence of the double standard is described by Chris Carter in his article Does Telepathy Conflict with Science?. Carter quotes Donald Hebb admitting there is sufficient evidence to prove ESP but he won't accept it because it conflicts with his "prejudice". Carter also quotes George Price who published an article in the journal Science where he implied that despite the proof, belief in ESP could be rejected because it conflicts with scientific theories. This is equivalent to saying he prefers to ignore empirical evidence when it conflicts with his beliefs.

Thursday, September 27, 2012

People who have near death experiences often meet God during their experience. This is evidence that God exists. Below is a video from an IANDS conference and several excerpts from near-death.com of people describing their meetings with God. Kevin Williams summarizes near-death experiencer observations about God here

In this video from an IANDS conference, Jessica Haynes discusses her near-death experience. She says that she had died and after reviewing her life she wanted to come back and live her life better. Unfortunately, she was dead and she was told, "You can't get back you don't have a body to get back to". But she insisted, repeatedly. So they took her to talk to God who enabled her to come back. She describes her experience of God as, "Pure love.", and "The most loving light you could imagine." He tells her "I am all, I created everything." The part where she describes this is from 10:30 to 15:00.

Many people have asked me what I believe in, how my NDE changed my life. All I can say is that I now believe in the God of the universe. Unlike many other people, however, I have never called God the light, because God is beyond our comprehension. God, I believe, is even more than the light, because God is also darkness. God is everything that exists, everything - and that is beyond our ability to comprehend at all. So I don't believe in the God of the Jews, or the Christians, or the Hindus, or in any one religion's idea of what God is or is not. It is all the same God, and that God showed me that the universe in which we live is a beautiful and marvelous mystery that is connected together forever and for always.

Anyone who has had such an experience of God, who has felt such a profound sense of connection with reality, knows that there is only one truly significant work to do in life, and that is love; to love nature, to love people, to love animals, to love creation itself, just because it is. To serve God's creation with a warm and loving hand of generosity and compassion - that is the only meaningful existence.

I was home and I wanted nothing more than to remain in the light of God. Christ had delivered me into the light and I stood in the presence of God. I was filled with complete knowing: The light was love and love was God. Waves of consummate love which emanated from the light obliterated every burden I carried and every thought that kept me from knowing God.

Then, like a trumpet blast with a shower of spiraling lights, the Great Light spoke, saying, "Remember this and never forget; you save, redeem and heal yourself. You always have. You always will. You were created with the power to do so from before the beginning of the world."

In that instant I realized even more. I realized that WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN SAVED, and we saved ourselves because we were designed to self-correct like the rest of God's universe. This is what the second coming is about.

I thanked the light of God with all my heart. The best thing I could come up with was these simple words of totally appreciation:

I didn't omit them intentionally. It's only that I didn't see God, Christ, or hear anything about salvation. However, I do consider the Master-Vibration as part of God because it controls the universe and seems to regulate everything except the evil minds of people on Earth.

To understand God, I believe one would have to be almost as great as God is. Or at least be like Christ who was in harmony with God. On the other hand, salvation is simple. All one has to do is to love so unselfishly that his soul-vibrations will rise high enough to fit him into heaven.

The Wise One continued speaking. "Throughout the vast unlimitedness of All That Is, the creative energy - that which is called the Spirit of God - is expressing itself as you, me, and everything else. Wherever we are, the God-source is, and we are always somewhere."

"Sometimes I am in places where God doesn't seem to be, as in the middle of a heart attack," I responded. "Surely God is not there."

"Yes. Wherever we are, the Source, God, is. A heart attack isn't bad. It is just an experience accepted on a certain level of being. We are so unlimited that we can limit, restrict, contract. Such power is awesome, for it is our very nature to create. We are constantly expressing in some way.

...

In the center of the universe I stand encircled by divine being. In this I live and move and have my being. I am in this world, and of it. The world of natural order, ease, and joy. Eternal goodness flowing, doing, being all. There is only joy; waves of love support, sustain. I am in God, not outside.

I am in love, consciously at peace with all there is. In God, I love and move and have my being. In love, I live and move and have my being. In peace, I live and move and have my being. There is nothing else. There is no outer. All is in the circle of God, Love, God Love. GOD LOVE.

The Kingdom of God is within me. Yes. But more important, I am in the Kingdom of God. The Spirit of God is within me, but more important, I am in the Spirit of God. The love of God is within me, but more important, I am in the love of God. All there is is God. I can be nowhere else. I cannot be separate from God.

God in the manifestation of infinite light appeared off to my left, and I was engulfed in a form of all-powerful, all-nourishing love. That divine being appeared as a massive column of golden light, with the suggestion of a human shape inside. I both saw and felt his light, feeling as if I were in a warm bath that completely healed and protected me. I never wanted to leave. No conversation passed between us, but in those infinite moments I acquired the knowledge that allowed me to go back to Earth to complete my life.

Behind me and to the left was a strong light source, very brilliant and filled with love. I knew it was a person. I called it God for lack of a better term. I could not see it; I felt what seemed like a male presence. He communicated to me, not so much in words but telepathically,

I was taken to a huge iridescent white room and told to sit down on some steps that led up to a large white chair, and wait there for someone who was to talk to me. He came out a door at the other end of the steps, walked to the chair above me, and sat down. He was dressed in a white, long-sleeved, floor-length robe with a wide gold band around the mid-section. He wore sandals. His dark brown hair was shoulder length; he had a long face, broad chin, dark eyes with black around both eyelids, like eyeliner pencil, but it wasn't. His skin was olive colored and his eyes were as liquid love. He communicated by looking at me. No words had to be spoken, as we could hear each other's thoughts. He told me what I had to do in life and had me go to the other side of the room and look down into something like a TV set so I could see my future. What I saw made me very happy. This man, who I believe is Jesus Christ, said that once I woke up in the hospital I would forget what I was supposed to do in life.

"Nothing can happen before its time," he cautioned.

As I was leaving the room he said I must obey his commandments if I wanted to come back.

When I revived, a nurse was sitting beside my bed and she said, "Thank God you finally woke up." I told the doctor that I had watched him work on me and the color of the machine brought into the surgery room. He didn't know what to say.

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Radin: One of the things I think is unique about Windbridge is the large number of mediums that have passed through a variety of hoops to make sure that they are actually as good as they think they are. Would you describe this process of forming what you call the research medium?

Beischel: We have an eight-step process. First, I should point out that we’re not looking for any new mediums. We have a bunch going through the eight steps at this time—currently the six mediums on our website have passed all eight steps. I won’t go through them all now; there are a lot of tests, interviews, and blinded readings. Once a person passes step five, the blinded reading part, he or she goes on to be trained. We’ve found that about 25 percent of people who think they’re good enough to pass our stringent testing do no better than chance.

Monday, September 24, 2012

Zeridni's World has a new post about the medium William Cartheuser. It describes a test conducted in a recording studio under controlled conditions where spirits spoke into microphones 20 feet in the air and spoke at frequencies higher and lower than any human voice could produce.

William Cartheuser

Posted on September 20, 2012

SEANCE OF THE CENTURY

by George Cranley

One of the most remarkable experimental direct voice séances ever conducted took place in 1933 and was recorded on nine long-playing records. The medium was William Cartheuser who had a severe speech defect, caused by a harelip and a cleft palate yet the spirit voices that spoke at his séances were free of impediment. His sittings remain for many some of the greatest Spiritualism has ever seen.

Edward Feser, in his blog post, Popper contra computationalism, explains a flaw in any argument that the brain is a conscious computer operating according to the laws of materialism. First he shows that a purely physical system operating according to the laws of materialism, such as a computer, cannot explain rational thought. Then he points out that since materialism cannot explain rational thought, any argument asserting materialism is true cannot be considered rational. Therefore, the materialist's assertion that the mind is a purely physical system such as a computer is irrational. In other words, there can be no justification to believe in materialism or that the mind is a computer.

Feser shows that materialism cannot explain our ability to reason:

Materialism says that thinking is ultimately a mechanical process. Like a computer running a program, thought is a transition from one physical state to another caused by known laws of physics.

Such a transition occurs due to physical laws not due to any inherent meaning in the physical states.

But a "thought can serve as a rational justification for another only by virtue of" it's "meaning"....

"If materialism is true, ... there is nothing about our thought processes that can make one thought a rational justification for another".

If you believe the brain is a conscious computer, it is irrational of you to believe anything. If you believe anything, you must believe materialism is false, the brain is not a conscious computer, and the mind is not produced by the brain.

There is also evidence of God. This evidence comes from mediums and people who have had veridical Near Death Experiences who obtain information that they could not have obtained with their normal senses. Some of this information is often verifiable and proves accurate. Therefore, the information they obtain that is not easily verified, such as information about the existence of God, may also be accurate. This is particularly true when many sources agree, and many such sources do agree that God exists.

When a skeptic who first denies there is any evidence is confronted with this evidence, the skeptic will say that he meant he is not convinced by that evidence. However, if a skeptic is going to say there is no convincing evidence for something when there is evidence that is widely considered to support it, rather than deny any evidence exists, he should explain why that evidence is not valid. In some cases the skeptic may be referring to a purely philosophical argument, for example a philosophical argument that God exists. But if a skeptic is going to dismiss a philosophical argument, he should also know what the argument is and be able to explain what part of the argument he disagrees with and why. Most of the attacks on philosophical arguments for the existence of God misstate those arguments.

The argument that "there is no evidence" or "it doesn't convince me", is actually a rhetorical device and not appropriate in a supposedly rational debate. If a skeptic can't explain why the evidence doesn't convince him, if he can't explain what is wrong with the evidence, then he probably doesn't really know what the evidence is, or he is not really trying to understand the evidence, or he has no valid argument against the evidence.

Why do skeptics insist on denying the evidence exists? Because if they actually discuss the evidence it becomes much harder to maintain that materialism is true. It is so much easier for the skeptic to deny the existence of evidence. It is easier for him to mislead than to explain why he believes in materialism when there is so much evidence against it.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

A skeptic may say that materialism can explain consciousness because the brain could be a conscious computer. As evidence to support this position, he may cite the paper Computing Machinery and Intelligence by Alan Turing. This paper is about a test for computer intelligence that has come to be called the Turing test. The Turing test involves two people and a computer. One person communicates remotely with both the computer and the other person. If he can't tell which is the person and which is the computer, then the computer passes the Turing test.

Turing argued that if you can't distinguish a computer from a person and if you doubt a computer is conscious, you must also doubt other people are conscious. Since we accept that people are conscious, if a computer passes the Turing test, the computer should be considered conscious too.

However, there are several reason it is incorrect to use this paper as evidence that the brain is a conscious computer.

Turing believed in the evidence for ESP and he felt a computer couldn't reproduce it.

(9) The Argument from Extrasensory Perception

I assume that the reader is familiar with the idea of extrasensory perception, and the meaning of the four items of it, viz., telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition and psychokinesis. These disturbing phenomena seem to deny all our usual scientific ideas. How we should like to discredit them! Unfortunately the statistical evidence, at least for telepathy, is overwhelming. It is very difficult to rearrange one's ideas so as to fit these new facts in. Once one has accepted them it does not seem a very big step to believe in ghosts and bogies. The idea that our bodies move simply according to the known laws of physics, together with some others not yet discovered but somewhat similar, would be one of the first to go.

...

If telepathy is admitted it will be necessary to tighten our test up. The situation could be regarded as analogous to that which would occur if the interrogator were talking to himself and one of the competitors was listening with his ear to the wall. To put the competitors into a "telepathy-proof room" would satisfy all requirements."

Turing wrote that the proof of his belief that a computer could pass the Turing test would only occur when a computer actually passed the Turing test. He incorrectly believed this would happen by the end of the twentieth century. However, it is already the second decade of the twenty first century and no computer has ever passed the Turing test. So there is no actual evidence that a computer can pass the Turing test.

The only really satisfactory support that can be given for the view expressed at the beginning of §6, will be that provided by waiting for the end of the century and then doing the experiment described.

From §6:

I believe that in about fifty years' time it will be possible, to programme computers, with a storage capacity of about 109 [10^9], to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70 per cent chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning. The original question, "Can machines think?" I believe to be too meaningless to deserve discussion. Nevertheless I believe that at the end of the century the use of words and general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted.

Clearly this prediction has not come to pass.

Even if a computer could pass the Turing test, that would not prove human consciousness is produced by the brain. There is a large amount of evidence that human consciousness survives the death of the body. A computer cannot imitate this. Any theory to explain human consciousness has to account for that evidence. You can't ignore empirical evidence because it contradicts a theory. A theory must be consistent with the empirical evidence, otherwise the theory is wrong.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

A well known spiritual healer died young so spiritual healing must not work.

A well known person wasn't helped by spiritual healing so spiritual healing must not work.

These fallacies are an example of a common trick skeptics use. Skeptics often make all sorts of unrealistic assumptions about a phenomenon they know nothing about and don't even believe exists. Then, they show their unrealistic assumptions are not true and assert that is evidence the phenomenon is not genuine. The fallacies here can be made obvious if you try to apply them to mainstream medicine. If a doctor dies young, that doesn't mean modern medicine is a fraud. No one lives forever, even with mainstream medicine. People die in hospitals every day. That doesn't mean mainstream medicine is a fraud. Unfortunately, there are many people who are not helped by mainstream medicine. There are diseases for which there is no effective treatment, and not all treatments are effective for every patient. All known methods of healing, including mainstream medicine and spiritual healing, have limits. They cannot always help every recipient of healing.

Humans are more than biological machines that operate strictly according to physical laws.

According to materialism, humans are biological machines and everything about us can be explained by the physical descriptions of the atoms that make up our body and brain. If that were true, there would be no need for consciousness because all the functions of a machine are determined by its physical structure. A machine does not need to be conscious to function. Therefore, according to materialism, consciousness should not have evolved because there is no need for it. If materialism were true, consciousness would not exist. Since you are aware of reading these words, you know that consciousness does exist and therefore materialism is not correct. Humans are more than just biological machines. Materialists will answer this by saying consciousness is an emergent property, or an illusion, or an epi-phenomenon of the brain. These are also fallacies which are explained in the two following sections.

Friday, September 14, 2012

In a previous post I explained why Darwinism is False. In this post I will explain why the evidence for evolution is flawed.

The article A Primer on the Tree of Life by Casey Luskin discusses the scientific research into the evolutionary relationships between species. The evolutionary relationships between species are determined by examining how similar species are with respect to one or more characteristic. Species that are most similar are believed to be most closely related evolutionarily. These evolutionary relationships can be illustrated with a tree of life. Each new species formed during evolution is represented by a fork in a branch on the tree of life and the new species is represented by a new branch. This illustrates the belief that a new species evolves from only one other species and the resulting two species, the original species and the newly evolved species, are shown on the tree by the two branches of the fork.

If the theory of evolution is correct, then when you examine different characteristics of organisms they should show the same evolutionary relationship between species. However what scientists have discovered is that when they examine different genes they find that they may indicate different trees of life. This contradicts the theory that a new species evolves from only one other species. The theory of evolution cannot explain how a species could evolve from more than one other species.

Someone may say that some of the similarities between species are due to common ancestry while other similarities are due to convergent evolution - where similar environmental factors lead to the evolution of similar characteristics. This could explain why a species might seem closer to one species when one characteristic is examined and closer to another species when a different characteristic is examined. However the theory of evolution says that all species evolved from a common ancestor. If there is no way to tell which characteristics are due to common ancestry and which are due to convergent evolution, if there is no way to tell which species evolved from which, then there is no evidence for evolution.

Casey Luskin provides detailed evidence and a thorough discussion of it in the body of the article, but he sums it up well in the conclusion:

The methodology for inferring common descent has broken down. Proponents of neo-Darwinian evolution are forced into reasoning that similarity implies common ancestry, except for when it doesn’t. And when it doesn’t, they appeal to all sorts of ad hoc rationalizations to save common ancestry. Tellingly, the one assumption and view that they are not willing to jettison is the overall assumption of common ancestry itself. This shows that evolutionists treat common descent in an unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific and ideological, fashion.

Meanwhile, as far as the data is concerned, the aforementioned New Scientist article admits, “Ever since Darwin the tree has been the unifying principle for understanding the history of life on Earth,” but because “different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories,” the notion of a tree of life is now quickly becoming a vision of the past — as the article stated “today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded,” and as scientists quoted in the article said, “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality” or the tree is being “annihilated.” Perhaps the reason why different genes are telling “different evolutionary stories” is because the genes have wholly different stories to tell, namely stories that indicate that all organisms are not genetically related. For those open-minded enough to consider it, common design is a viable alternative to common descent.

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Skeptical Investigations explains how the skeptical organization CSICOP while trying to debunk astrology, actually found evidence supporting astrology and "In order to get the result they wanted, ... had to commit a total of six statistical blunders...".

The statistician and psychologist Michael Gauquelin had done a statistical analysis providing evidence that astrology might have some basis in fact. His analysis showed a correlation between the position of Mars in the sky at the time of birth and the odds of a person becoming a sports champion...

In 1976, in an attempt to make this embarrassment go away once and for all, Harvard professor of biostatistics and CSICOP fellow Marvin Zelen proposed a simplified version of the original Gauquelin study which he subsequently performed with the assistance of CSICOP chairman and professor of philosophy Paul Kurtz and George Abell, a UCLA astronomer. In order to get the result they wanted, the trio had to commit a total of six statistical blunders, which are discussed in detail in the article The True Disbelievers: Mars Effect Drives Skeptics to Irrationality by former CSICOP fellow Richard Kammann. Proper analysis showed that the new study actually supported the Gauquelin effect.

However the problem is not just that skeptics and atheists are spreading misinformation.

Research shows that belief in the paranormal and religion can be conducive to the health and well being of people. These beliefs can help people cope with grief, divorce, job loss, the fear of death, particularly in the terminally ill, and can deter suicide. Therefore, when skeptics and atheists try to convince people to stop believing in the paranormal and religion, they may be doing harm to other people. Furthermore, research also shows that having meaning in life is necessary for people to thrive but skeptics claim consciousness and meaning are illusions. When skeptics spread their philosophy of materialism they may cause harm by taking the meaning and purpose of life away from people.

I am not saying anyone, skeptic, atheist, or believer should change their beliefs because of this research. You should believe what you think is right.

Also, I am not saying all skeptics and atheists are bad people. We all incarnate for different purposes, to learn different lessons. Some people need to have the experience of being a skeptic or an atheist. I went through a period of my life where I was a materialist atheist and during that time I formed a highly developed sense of ethics. That sense of ethics is much more valuable to me than one based on fear of karmic retribution or punishment in the afterlife. I follow those values because I know they are right not because I am afraid to do otherwise. I had to have the experience of being a materialist to develop those values.

However, if your beliefs are dangerous to another person, if they will harm his health and well being, you should not go on a crusade to convert him to your way of thinking. If someone is grieving, or suffering from a terminal illness, or feeling suicidal, you shouldn't try to convert him to materialism. But it is not just the afterlife. The references I link to below show religion can help if you are going through a divorce or have lost your job. These are not theoretical points. Real people experiencing real suffering can be harmed by activist skeptics.

I realize this attitude may upset some skeptics. However my overriding concern is to protect people from being harmed by skeptics and atheists.

Below I include links, quotes, and references to research that shows how helpful religion and belief in the paranormal can be to people. But I also know this from my own experience. I have been to many Spiritualist church services and I've seen what I am writing about first hand. Many people come to a Spiritualist church for the first time when they are suffering from grief because mediumship is part of the Sunday service. Some of these people are suffering from extreme grief from the death of a spouse or a child. Losing a child is one of the most difficult of all things to have to experience in life. During church services, I've seen and heard with my own senses the comfort and relief that a communication from a deceased loved one can give to another person.

Imagine a child conceived in love, who you carried in pregnancy, gave birth to, fed from your own breast, and raised from infancy. Who you taught to walk and talk and took to their first day of school and had birthday parties for. Who you loved and who loved you and trusted you completely in their innocent childlike way. Imagine your hopes and dreams for their future. Now, imagine their life is cut short, maybe by a sudden accident or a lingering illness. Actually, you can't imagine the grief and sense of loss a parent would feel in that situation. Now try to imagine what it is like for that parent to know that their child's existence has not been cut short but that their child is living with Grandma in another plane of existence, and they can still know about each other and communicate words of love.

I've been there during Spiritualist church services and seen and heard a medium provide this comfort to people suffering from extreme grief. I knew the medium, I knew the church, I know it wasn't cold reading or hot reading and I know the information the medium gave to identify the spirit was specific, detailed, and impossible to guess by chance.

So I also know the harm that can be done by skeptics who never had this experience and who don't know what they are talking about when they try to convince someone else that it is all a delusion or a fraud.

Professor Clark said: "We originally started the research to work out why some European countries had more generous unemployment benefits than others, but our analysis suggested that religious people suffered less psychological harm from unemployment than the non-religious.

"They had higher levels of life satisfaction".

...

Even though churchgoers were unsurprisingly more likely to oppose divorce, they were both less psychologically affected by marital separation when it did happen, he said.

"What we found was that religious people were experiencing current day rewards, rather than storing them up for the future."

...

But Justin Thacker, head of Theology for the Evangelical Alliance, said that there should now be no doubt about the connection between religious belief and happiness.

"There is more than one reason for this - part of it will be the sense of community and the relationships fostered, but that doesn't account for all of it.

"A large part of it is due to the meaning, purpose and value which believing in God gives you, whereas not believing in God can leave you without those things."

In fact, some research has found that people who regularly attend religious services can expect to live an average of seven years longer than their peers who never step inside a church, synagogue or mosque.

...

New research has found “that the positive effects of religion depend enormously on where you live,” writes Upson. “Religious people may be happier than their godless counterparts, but only if the society they belong to values religion highly, which not all societies do.”

Grief from the loss of a loved one is often overwhelming and crushing. Religions often try to ease that gaping sense of emptiness through ritual aimed at facilitating gradual release. And the literature on the positive effects of religion on healing is significant. Becker, in his 2007 paper, “Do religious or spiritual beliefs influence bereavement?: A systematic review,” analyzed 32 studies, covering a total of 5715 persons. 94% of the studies showed some positive effects of religious or spiritual beliefs on bereavement [all references below].

...

There is a comfort that a belief in life after death brings, and it allows the belief holder to better reconcile his loss, to be less gripped by overwhelming fears, to adapt better, and, in some cases, to recover faster.

Davis C, Nolen-Hoeksemea S. Loss and meaning: How do people make sense of loss. American Behavioral Scientist 2001; 44(5):726-741.

Schoenrade P. When I die…Belief in afterlife as a response to mortality. Personality and Social Psychology Journal 1989; 15(1):91-100.

Smith P, Range L, Ulmer A. Belief in afterlife as a buffer in suicidal and Other bereavement. OMEGA–Journal of Death and Dying 1991-92; 24(3):217-225.

Lessons from the Light by Kenneth Ring and Evelyn Elsaesser. The link goes to a page in the book that describes how knowledge of Near Death Experiences deters suicide.

As far as I know, the first clinician to make use of NDE material in this context was a New York psychologist named John McDonagh. In 1979, he presented a paper at a psychological convention that described his success with several suicidal patients using a device he called "NDE bibliotherapy." His "technique" was actually little more than having his patients read some relevant passages from Raymond Moody's book, Reflections on Life after Life, after which the therapist and his patient would discuss its implicatins for the latter's own situation. McDonagh reports that such an approach was generally quite successful not only in reducing suicidal thoughts but also in preventing the deed altogether.

...

Since McDonagh's pioneering efforts, other clinicians knowledgeable about the NDE who have had the opportunity to counsel suicidal patients have also reported similar success. Perhaps the most notable of these therapists is Bruce Greyson, a psychiatrist now at the University of Virginia, whose specialty as a clinician has been suicidology. He is also the author of a classic paper on NDEs and suicide which the specialist may wish to consult for tis therapeutic implications. (14)

Quite apart form the clinicians who have developed this form of what we migh call "NDE-assisted therapy," I can draw upon my own personal experience here to provide additional evidence of how the NDE has helped to deter suicide. The following case ...

Friday, September 7, 2012

I posted an update to Objects That Contain Healing Power. Scroll to the bottom of the post to get to the update. The update describes another experiment I did in which healing energy is stored in a plastic jar and used it to turn an Egely wheel (a very sensitive psi wheel).

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Recently, the topic of altered states came up on a discussion forum I participate in. I posted this information...

One easy way to experience an altered state is to just observe yourself as you fall asleep at night and try to notice when you are in the hypnogogic state. When that happens it is very hard to concentrate on one thing for more than a few seconds and you have very vivid mental imagery.

If you try repeating a phrase over and over as you fall asleep, (or while you are doing relaxation exercises), you get to a point where you can't concentrate on it for more than a few seconds without your mind wandering and at the same time you experience very vivid mental imagery. Then you are in the hypnogogic state and your brain is probably producing lots of theta waves. Theta waves have been reported to coincide with psychic experiences.

I find the hypnogogic state is a good state for doing remote viewing and spirit communication. I explain this in more detail on my web site.

If you don't want to get too spooky, just consider the hypnogogic state a good state to access the unconscious. If you have a personal or spiritual question, repeat the question over and over and when your mind wanders and you have mental imagery, see if there isn't an answer or symbolic answer somewhere in the mental noise.

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

The majority of Americans believe in psychic phenomena. People usually believe in psychic phenomena and the afterlife because of their personal experiences, the experiences of people they know, or their religious beliefs. Unfortunately, there is still a lot of ignorance about the evidence for afterlife and the evidence for psychic phenomena.

There are also many people who are drawn to skepticism for several reasons. Because skeptics are influential, politicians and scientists are afraid to acknowledge belief in psychic phenomena and the afterlife or to advocate increased research in those fields.

This is a problem for Science and a problem for Humanity. What could be of greater significance to science than the huge gaps in our understanding of the universe that are revealed by our inability to explain psychic phenomena? What could be more important to humanity than an understanding of the survival of consciousness after death?

If most Americans believe in psychic phenomena, why do skeptics have such a disproportionate influence in society?

A large part of the problem is that the many scientists are skeptics and they have a lot of influence on our culture in many different areas: they advise politicians, they publish popular books, they control research funding, they influence the editorial policy of scientific journals, they consult for the news and entertainment media, etc etc. Because science has been so successful in modern times giving us improved medical care, agriculture, transportation, communication, and many other technologies, the opinions of scientists are highly respected. But the biggest problem is that scientists persecute any scientist who shows an interest in anything paranormal. This is what is really stifling greater acceptance of psychic phenomena in society and what is preventing more money from being spent on parapsychological research. Scientists' skepticism also gives moral authority to anyone else who also advocates skepticism.

Why are so many scientist skeptics? Because naturalism is an implicit part of the culture of science and science students are indoctrinated in that philosophy during their education. Naturalism is the belief that science should only study natural processes and consider natural explanations for phenomena. This is a mistake. Science should be the search for the truth where ever it leads. This flaw in the culture of science is due to a large extent to T. H. Huxley and the X club. The X Club was Founded by T. H. Huxley and played an important role in making naturalism a fundamental tenet of modern science.

The nine men who would compose the X Club already knew each other well. By the 1860s, friendships had turned the group into a social network, and the men often dined and went on holidays together. After Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, the men began working together to aid the cause for naturalism and natural history.

...

More importantly, the men of the club all shared an interest in natural history, naturalism, and a more general pursuit of intellectual thought free from religious influence, commonly referred to as academic liberalism.

- Wikipedia

One of the great successes of the X Club was engineering the supremacy of Darwinsim over the theories of Alfred Russel Wallace who also discovered the theory of natural selection. Darwin was an agnostic who believed in naturalism. Wallace was a Spiritualist.

Why isn’t Wallace remembered like Darwin?

The reasons are complex but largely related to the complete and sweeping dominance of Darwinian evolution. From the very beginning, when the theory of natural selection was unveiled to the scientific community at the Linnean Society on July 1, 1858, the entire program was engineered by Darwin’s colleagues and close friends, Joseph Hooker and Charles Lyell, to give their friend priority. When Origin was published a little over a year later modern evolutionary theory became Darwin’s theory. Another of Darwin’s allies, his “Bulldog” defender Thomas Henry Huxley, sought to solidify the theory by managing its every promotional and public aspect so as to gain paradigmatic status for it within the scientific community. In order to facilitate this end, Huxley composed the X Club, a group of eight kindred spirits: Huxley (the leader), Joseph Hooker, John Tyndall, George Busk, Edward Frankland, Herbert Spencer, Thomas Hirst, and John Lubbock. Under Huxley’s skillful management the X Club ensured the success of Darwinism, establishing it as the preeminent theory of biological life first in England and later throughout all of Europe. As if this weren’t enough to consign Wallace to obscurity, his insistence upon using the term “Darwinism” in the context of his own very different theory tended only to cause confusion and misunderstanding. Today, when Wallace is mentioned at all it is usually through a decidedly Darwinian lens.

The formation of the X Club was happening during the second half of the 19th century, also the time the Society for Psychical Research was getting started. Huxley did not want studies of psychic and Spiritualist phenomena to become part of science.

The only good that I can see in the demonstration of the truth of "Spiritualism" is to furnish an additional argument against suicide. Better live a crossing-sweeper than die and be made to talk twaddle by a "medium" hired at a guinea a séance.

Because of T. H Huxley and the X club, naturalism has become so ingrained in modern scientific culture and education, students don't even realize they are being indoctrinated. Because of this, Huxley can be considered a major cause of modern of science's intolerance to psychic phenomena and the source of modern pseudo-skepticism.

It is unfortunate that Darwin was used this way in the adoption of philosophical naturalism and materialism by the scientific establishment. Materialism is a gross misrepresentation of Darwin's thinking. Darwin believed that natual laws were designed - which is a form of intelligent design. Darwin also doubted human reason could be reliable if it arose through natural selection. If you cannot trust reason, then it is not rational to believe in anything including materialism. This argument is a well known flaw in materialism whereby materialism refutes itself. Darwin's beliefs did not support materialism yet his theory of natural selection is a keystone in the philosophy of materialisim because it provides materialism with an explanation of how complex organisms arose naturally.

Because naturalism is such an integral part of the scientific worldview, working as a scientist tends to brainwash a person into believing in physicalism. This is because scientists spend all their time trying to find physicalist solutions to problems. They get stuck thinking that way and can't conceive there might be something that current science can't explain or that there could be significant gaps in scientific knowledge. Like the proverbial man with a hammer to whom everything looks like a nail, to a scientist every question must have a physicalist answer.

Because the skeptical attitudes of scientists give moral authority to the anti-religious fanatics and allow the government to use scientists as pawns in their suppression of parapsychology, the root cause of the influence of skepticism in society stems from the intolerance of scientists. This intolerance originates in the belief in naturalism. T. H. Huxley was not a pseudo-skeptic, and it is sadly ironic that his good intentions have had such unfortunate consequences.

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

There is a lot of discussion on an internet forum I follow about self-directed neuroplasticity. Some people feel that self-directed neuroplasticity is evidence that consciousness is not produced by the brain.

I disagree with this opinion.

Self-directed neuroplasticity is the phenomenon whereby the brain is altered by conscious thought. Meditation and cognitive therapy are conscious processes that have been shown to alter the brain.

However, some people believe the brain cannot be capable of modifying itself and therefore self-directed neuroplasticity shows that consciousness must be independent from the brain.

The reason I don't consider this to be correct is as follows:

Ordinary neuroplasticity is not controversial. Neurons in the brain alter their connections during any process that involves learning.

If you want to demonstrate that self-directed neuroplasticity is different from ordinary neuroplasticity and is evidence that consciousness is not produced by the brain, you have to start from the premise that consciousness is produced by the brain and try to show that premise leads to a contradiction. If you start from the premise that consciousness is not produced by the brain you are starting from the point you are trying to prove. Those who believe that self-directed neuroplasticity is evidence that consciousness is not produced by the brain often ask "who is doing the meditation that alters the brain" - as if this implied consciousness was not produced by the brain. However that implication is the point to be proved not an assumption you can start with.

Do the two statements 1) consciousness is produced by the brain, and 2) consciousness is not an illusion or an epiphenomenon of the brain - constitute a contradiction?

No. Consciousness might be produced by the brain and also influence the brain. For example, one part of the brain might influence another part of the brain. As an analogy, a computer system or network of computers can be programmed to allocate and reallocate resources depending on changing usage requirements. You could try to refute this point by saying in self-directed neuroplasticity consciousness alters the part of the brain that is responsible for consciousness. If you do that, you are admitting that the brain produces consciousness which is what you are trying to disprove.

You cannot argue that it is impossible for the brain to alter itself, because in self-directed neuroplasticity consciousness has effects on the brain that alter consciousness. Cognitive therapy and meditation are both conscious processes that alter the brain and have effects on consciousness. If consciousness can alter itself, which is not in dispute, you are admitting there are conscious systems that can alter themselves and therefore there are no grounds to argue that the brain cannot produce consciousness and alter itself.

Therefore self-directed neuroplasticity, whereby consciousness alters the brain, does not provide evidence that consciousness is not produced by the brain.

I think there is so much confusion over this issue because people who believe consciousness is not produced by the brain bring that opinion to the debate and they don't realize how it influences their reasoning. They start from that premise and don't realize it. They often refer to some other phenomenon that is evidence consciousness is not produced by the brain as if it bolstered their argument. But that is just another way of assuming the premise they are trying to prove or proving the premise by alternate means. In order to show self-directed neuroplasticity is evidence that consciousness is not produced by the brain, you have to start from the premise that consciousness is produced by the brain and try to show that leads to a contradiction. Otherwise you are starting with the premise you are trying to prove. However as I have tried to show above, that premise does not lead to a contradiction.

RSS/Atom Reader

Followers

Eminent Researchers

Charles Darwin: ... I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance.

Kurt Gödel: Materialism is false. ... The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived. ... The brain is a computing machine connected with a spirit. ... I don’t think the brain came in the Darwinian manner. In fact, it is disprovable. ... Mind is separate from matter. ... There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind.

Alan Turing: I assume that the reader is familiar with the idea of extrasensory perception, and the meaning of the four items of it, viz., telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition and psychokinesis. These disturbing phenomena seem to deny all our usual scientific ideas. How we should like to discredit them! Unfortunately the statistical evidence, at least for telepathy, is overwhelming. It is very difficult to rearrange one's ideas so as to fit these new facts in. Once one has accepted them it does not seem a very big step to believe in ghosts and bogies. The idea that our bodies move simply according to the known laws of physics, together with some others not yet discovered but somewhat similar, would be one of the first to go.

Max Planck (Nobel Prize for Physics): I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.

Erwin Schrödinger (Nobel Prize for Physics): Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.

Albert Einstein (Nobel Prize for Physics): On the other hand, however, every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble

...

I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.

Brian D. Josephson (Nobel Prize for Physics): What are the implications for science of the fact that psychic functioning appears to be a real effect? These phenomena seem mysterious, but no more mysterious perhaps than strange phenomena of the past which science has now happily incorporated within its scope.

Charles Robert Richet (Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine): 1. There is in us a faculty of cognition that differs radically from the usual sensorial faculties (Cryptesthesia). 2. There are, even in full light, movements of objects without contact (Telekinesis). 3. Hands, bodies, and objects seem to take shape in their entirety from a cloud and take all the semblance of life (Ectoplasms). 4. There occur premonitions that can be explained neither by chance nor perspicacity, and are sometimes verified in minute detail. Such are my firm and explicit conclusions.

Pierre Curie (Nobel Prize for Physics): It was very interesting, and really the phenomena that we saw appeared inexplicable as trickery—tables raised from all four legs, movement of objects from a distance, hands that pinch or caress you, luminous apparitions. All in a [setting] prepared by us with a small number of spectators all known to us and without a possible accomplice. The only trick possible is that which could result from an extraordinary facility of the medium as a magician. But how do you explain the phenomena when one is holding her hands and feet and when the light is sufficient so that one can see everything that happens?

Sir John Eccles (Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine): I maintain that the human mystery is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual world in terms of patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be classed as a superstition ... we have to recognize that we are spiritual beings with souls existing in a spiritual world as well as material beings with bodies and brains existing in a material world.